HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Derek Hillborn
Applicant
-and-
Canadian Babbitt Bearings and Ben Pach
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: August 7, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1055 Indexed as: Hillborn v. Canadian Babbitt Bearings
1These Applications, which have been consolidated, allege discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The respondents have not yet filed a Response (Form 2) but instead have filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”). In their RFOP the respondents seek the following:
a. An extension of time to file a Response.
b. An Order directing the applicant to particularize his Application.
c. An Order removing the personal respondent as a party to the proceeding.
3By letter dated July 15, 2015, the Registrar suspended the deadline for filing a Response until a Vice-chair determined the matters outlined in the RFOP. The applicant did not file a response to the RFOP.
4The RFOP is granted in part.
The Request for Particulars:
5The narrative in both Applications is identical. Most of the narrative contained in the Applications describes incidents that occurred on the day the applicant was told to go home and not return until contacted by the corporate respondent. At the end of the narrative, it is stated that many of the applicant’s coworkers and supervisors were aware of his disability, that he has been harassed by his coworkers about the disability and that he reported the harassment to his supervisors. It states that he does not think anyone was reprimanded for this alleged harassment and that the corporate respondent has neglected his human rights.
6The Application does not provide any details about how and when the respondents and other employees were made aware of his disability; how and when the alleged harassment occurred or how and when he reported the harassment to his supervisors. The respondents allege, and I agree, that it is not possible for them to provide a fulsome and meaningful Response without these details.
The Request to Remove the Personal Respondent
7The respondents seek the removal of the personal respondent as a party to the Application. Without particulars of the alleged harassment, it is not possible to assess whether the personal respondent could be found to be liable for a Code breach and he should therefore remain as a respondent. After the applicant provides his particularized Application, the respondents may renew this request.
Order
8The Tribunal makes the following orders:
a. The applicant must provide full particulars of all the alleged incidents of harassment including the times when he alleges he “let it drop”. These particulars should include: the names of persons who were allegedly aware of the applicant’s disability and how and when they were made aware; the names of persons who allegedly harassed him; details of the form of the harassment such as what was said; details of when the alleged harassment occurred; and details of when he reported the harassment and to whom. The applicant will provide an amended Application including these particulars within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
b. The respondents will deliver and file their Response within 35 days of receiving the applicant’s amended Application.
c. The request to remove the personal respondent is denied without prejudice to the respondents’ right to renew the request following receipt of the amended Application.
9I am not seized
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of August, 2015.
“Signed By” __________________________________
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair